I do think for now (until 2011) the project is on a good funding schedule.

The $24mn number is misunderstood by a lot of people. The state has to contribute a total more like $29mn. The governor asked for around $5mn for this budget (29 – 5 = 24!). As far as I know, this $5mn commitment wouldn’t have delayed R8A.

According to the WSDOT website the following funds were committed to R8A by the State:
# 2005 Gas Tax (Partnership funding) – $30 million
# 2003 Gas Tax (Nickel funding) – $15 million
# Existing Funds – $6 million

According to the budget $11.5M was appropriated for Stage 1 (A little over $14M was originally budgeted). $10M in this budget should cover engineering and design costs for stage 2 and 3 but it leaves $29.5M to be appropriated for stage 3 construction in the next biennium. Not likely given the States attempts at pulling funding from this project. More likely is the legislature is planning that most or all of this $29.5M will be paid for out of ST’s “pot of gold”. Some amount, maybe $6-10M could be saved if the project comes in under budget but on the flip side ST assumes all responsibility for cost overruns and zero benefit from any savings.

At best this was a well executed shell game by the legislature to divert about 1/2 of the promised funding for R8A to other pet highway projects around the State. They’re not done yet; the end of the rainbow is this December when the price for use of the center roadway is decided.

It still begs the question, why is the wording “Funds shall be used solely for preliminary engineering” in the house budget other than as a tool to leverage ST’s “pot of gold” or to derail the entire East Link project?

This budget covers 2009-2011, it’s a two year budget. The next budget will cover 2011-2013. The one after that will cover 2013-2015.

And since the Two-Way HOV lanes project construction lasts through 2014, this budget, the next one, and potentially the one after that will have to provide funding for it. The entirety of R8A funding wasn’t needed in this budget.

The $24mn number is misunderstood by a lot of people. The state has to contribute a total more like $29mn. The governor asked for around $5mn for this budget (29 – 5 = 24!). As far as I know, this $5mn commitment wouldn’t have delayed R8A.

Look at the governor’s budget (search for “two way”). Note that instead of planning to fund Two Way HOV in 2011 and again in 2013, it’s just listed under “future.” This is the $24mn we talk about. This problem still hasn’t been fixed, and will probably be a fight in another two years. Given this year’s response, it will hopefully be easier to address. (I think that some in the legislature want any tolling on I-90 to fund this project, which is why they may not want to budget it yet.)

So yes, this entire thing has been about $5mn — it was needed to keep R8A and East Link on schedule. The House ended up boosting the state contribution this budget to $10mn, which is good but it’s just a transfer of funds — it’s $5mn now that ST won’t get later. So, really, the $24mn has nothing to do with this budget. It is money (now more like $19mn) that needs to be budgeted for the next budgets and is needed to complete East Link on schedule. (All of these dollar figures are indexed for inflation at budget time, obviously.)

And if $5mn worked for ST, couldn’t they have just funded that themselves? Maybe, but if the state won’t fund $5mn of their commitments they probably won’t fund the full $29mn either. And that’s the House budget said: No funding, $0, on this until after 2015.

To summarize: This was a fight we originally thought for two years from now instead of today. When the House and Senate removed funding for this budget, it changed the story and moved us to urgency. ST isn’t picking up for a funding gap because there isn’t one. The state has still not budgeted its future $19mn commitments which is something it should fix so future budgets won’t inappropriately put East Link on the line.

I’m still deeply suspicious that the wording in the house budget can be used either as a tool to tap further in ST’s “pot of gold” or derail the entire East Link project. Why else is it there? I mean they can’t spend the money on concrete until the engineering and regulatory approval process is complete. Remember the Senate budget simply failed to fund the project. It was the house that has insisted on inserting the poison pill language every step of the way.

I know damn well you’re not this dense, please stop acting like things are black and white.